Thursday, 30 April 2009

... or how Labour use our money to pay themselves to lobby ... err ... themselves.

Via Taking Liberties, one might wish to read an article by Ed West at the Telegraph describing very well how Labour are bastardising democracy, and using our taxes to do it.**

Imagine a taxpayer-funded advert calling on the Government to reduce abortion or immigration?The squeals of outrage would kill every vole and mouse within 5 miles of the Guardian offices. But it's an impossible scenario, as debate in Britain is skewed leftwards because Left-wing pressure groups are funded by the Government - in other words, us.

Labour. Corrupt to the very core.

** As usual, the anti-smoking rabble in the comments completely miss the point of the piece (deliberately perhaps?)

Wednesday, 29 April 2009

From the budget debate. Eric Illsley, Labour MP for Barnsley Central, seems to be set adrift between his party's healthist single-mindedness, and reality. He sort of knows what Labour rhetoric he should be regurgitating, but can't quite help occasionally meandering into telling the truth.

Mr. Illsley: I am on record as supporting minimum pricing and attacking supermarkets. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady’s comments.

In reality, alcohol consumption among young people is falling. In 2008, alcohol consumption fell by 4 per cent. among males and 22 per cent. among females.

Falling, did you say?

Then ...

It is argued that it is not just beer duty that is causing pubs to close, and there are a number of other reasons: high rents, difficulties with leases and the smoking ban have all contributed.

Awww bless. He really cares about pubs. Apart from when damaging measures are being passed by his party, natch. Unfortunately, he didn't feel like turning up to register objection when one of the contributing factors of which he speaks was put to a free vote.

A Labour MP pointing to one of his own party's policies as a problem, after having done fuck all to block it, and letting a cat out of the department of health propaganda bag? Small wonder he's still a backbencher after 22 years at Westmonster.

Tuesday, 28 April 2009

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is considering extending a £15 surcharge for victims to those handed on-the-spot fines and fixed penalties.

We have seen this scam before. Introduction of a stream of revenue for a defined purpose, only to change the rules once it has been embedded ... like National Insurance.

The victim surcharge was an idea that had a beginning and an end. Those who inflict damage on victims should be made to pay. Unfortunately, the victim bit looks like being airbrushed out of the equation. Not so much a charge, then, but a new tax (on top of the VAT already included in PCNs).

So, if this is enacted, drop a crisp packet resulting in a fine and you will be paying £51 to the local authority, but £24 directly to government (more when VAT goes back to 17.5%).

Sometimes one has to just step back and admire the sheer, corrupt nerve of the modern political class.

Monday, 27 April 2009

The 8 year old Dick Puddlecote was a good boy. Back in the 70s, right was distinguishable from wrong for most kids, as the education system worked then. My first attempt at miscreancy was slow in the making and only materialised in the second year of the annual Puddlecote family jaunt down to the Isle of Thanet.

As kids were expected to run around in the sunshine back then (even Atari was still a twinkle in some Jap boffin's eye), us holidaying kids used to dare each other to run through the gardens of an old people's home, the back gate of which was forever open. It was so dangerous to us that it was a naughty fantasy until a daredevil 10 year old from Scunthorpe turned up in the second of our two weeks and said he was brave enough to try. It was only the day before we left that he actually plucked up the courage to do so. It wasn't brazen, it wasn't bold, in fact, he was a blur as he ran like Hasely Crawford for approximately 10 seconds around the grounds and back again. Boy were we impressed though. He hadn't been clipped round the ear, in fact, no-one had turned a hair.

Emboldened, one by one we all tried it too. Having gotten away with what we considered the kids' equivalent of anarchy, we became more daring, pushing the boundaries until, an hour before we were due to leave, we were doing one last conga in and out of the statue-like oldies, singing Disco Duck.

If that first northern kid had been twatted with a copy of the Thanet Times the moment he set foot in there, we'd have slunk back to the hotel in terror. The fact it never came ensured that we took the piss.

This Labour government, lounging around doing fuck all while single issue lunatics make hay, is seeing piss-taking on an unprecedented scale from those who should be slapped round the face and told to get a life. The minority righteous have gained so much courage from those that have gone before them that they feel any nutty cause can be tackled with Brown and his government of the incredibly untalented.

The latest sheer affront to tolerance and appreciation of differing lifestyles is Andrew Tyler of Animal Aid, who wants angling banned for the sake of the poor fish.

Andrew Tyler, director of animal rights group Animal Aid, said: 'Fish are probably the most abused group of animals in our culture. Fishing is seen as a poetic, meditative practice, but it's barbaric, cruel and should be banned. How much more research do they need?'

These swivel-eyed dickheads are swarming out of the woodwork since they have seen Labour to be an easy touch.

The hunting ban, smoking ban, and the continued pressure (which will result in bans sooner or later) on alcohol and fatty foods under this government, have shown them the way. They have run around the Labour garden, gotten away with it, and invited their fruitcake friends to try their luck too.

The unthinkable is actually possible when engaging with a government who possess the idealistic fantasies of Rick from The Young Ones, coupled with the numb-headed pragmatism of ... Rick from The Young Ones.

The response, of course, is normally docile people raring up and fighting against the minorities who are ruining community and respect for the lives of others (the more mature Puddlecote could be considered in that category). A nation divided like a convoluted Venn diagram of who agrees with one or assorted bans but not with others. This quite clearly doesn't work. You either stand up to all of them or just give in and wait for what you personally enjoy to be ripped away from you.

The seat belt enforcement of 1983 may have only been a dim green light, but the gathering of righteous pace since then has been cranked up exponentially since 1997 and then taken to extremes once Blair was out of the way.

This country is being ripped apart by single issue nutcases and, to paraphrase H.G. Wells, there seems to be no one or anything left now to fight them. Britain belongs to the Righteous.

It's time it was stopped. It's time the tiny minorities like Animal Aid (and they are tiny) were told to fuck off. Alcohol Concern is merely 16 people, yet they are being listened to, and dictating government policy to 61 million people. ASH are a paltry 9 people, yet have wrought untold damage on the hospitality industry via their pharmaceutical paymasters. Animal Aid are even smaller than that, yet, between stroking hamsters and avoiding stepping on snails, they have managed such feats as:

Never mind that unsold kitties and puppies might end up being put down for not being found a decent home.

And, as one might expect, with full backing from Labour, to train the upcoming intake of righteous.

Speak in around 300 schools each year

Now they have anglers in their sights. I hate to say I told you so, but if you enjoy fishing and you have nodded your head in agreement over any of the previous examples of bansturbation, remember that you are partly to blame.

Beer lovers thought they were too big to be tackled in comparison to others who have been caught in Labour's cross-hair, they are rapidly finding out that they were wrong.

Fight every call for illiberal bans, whether you are personally happy with them or not, and you may have a chance of your particular pastime avoiding curtailment. Encourage the shrill righteous minority, or even appease them, and you will be screwed.

Labour have encouraged, by indolence, this division of people. Highly-funded righteous versus grass roots reaction. The result is state-approved hatred and a degradation of community in favour of selfishness and intolerance.

Still, at least the fish may be happy soon ... not that they will remember it for long.

Friday, 24 April 2009

OK, she's not a patch on the drool-inducing Natasha, but I'd welcome this teacher to my kids' school too.

Mrs Langley-Bliss has shocked parents by sending an astonishing 61 pupils home in a single day for minor breaches of rules.

It is understood that hundreds more pupils received detentions or were sent to punishment classrooms for failing to bring the correct equipment.

At the end of the previous term, a special assembly had been held for the 11 to 18-year-olds, to inform them of the high standards expected of them in future.

Over the Easter holiday a letter was also sent to parents specifying the approved uniform, and listing all the 'basic equipment' children must carry at all times.

Pupils were warned that not having items such as pencils would result in detention or exclusion.

On Monday, a huge proportion of them had clearly not done well enough.

The squealing of fuckwit parents is a joy to behold.

Mrs Cautick added: 'It just seems ridiculous. If it was an adult it would be classed as an infringement of their human rights.'

Firstly, they are not adults, so stop with the straw man. Secondly, you are, so if you had read and acted on the perfectly reasonable communications from the school, your kids wouldn't have been sent home. Stop bleating and get on with it, you daft tart.

Quite rightly, Mrs Langley-Bliss isn't abashed by her stance, despite the mud-flinging by disgruntled kids about her facebook page, which, of course, is entirely personal, conducted out of school time, and, just like Natasha's case, nothing to do with anyone but herself.

She confirmed that 46 pupils were excluded for one day for disruptive behaviour or refusing to follow-instructions and that 15 were asked to go home to get the required equipment or uniform.'

What's not to like?

Even the council come out of this smelling of roses.

A spokesman for Kent County Council, which supported Mrs Langley-Bliss's purge, insisted parents had exaggerated the extent of the crackdown, adding: 'Pupils are at the school to learn - it's not a holiday camp.'

A statement from [the British Beer and Pub Association] said: “In imposing these additional beer taxes, the government has wilfully ignored the views of the public, landlords, consumer groups, industry representatives and MPs from all parties who have been calling for action to save the British pub."

That would be because Labour don't give a shit about you.

The Campaign for Real Ale's chief executive Mike Benner said: "It is disappointing that the Chancellor has ignored widespread public concern about the plight of Britain’s pubs and decided to press ahead with an increase which will result in yet more valued community pubs closing down."

Maybe the scales are beginning to be lifted from their eyes. They might even start fighting properly sometime soon, instead of rolling over and begging for a biscuit like they did when the last major threat to their trade was passing through parliament.

Just a reminder, Benner et al. It's Friday, it's gone 9:00pm, and I'm at home with a cheeky Shiraz from Sainsburys, Fanny Puddlecote at my side, and a fresh pouch of Belgian bought tobacco. My local will only accommodate two of the above. It's not just the tax on beer causing your problems, OK?

Thursday, 23 April 2009

On certain matters, the inherited Puddlecote memory is almost elephantine**. Today is a fine example, as, after reading an astonishing document earlier, the first thing that jumped into my head was Tom Harris (it was a tight squeeze), regarding something he said on his blog in October.

But the Department of Health recently held a consultation on whether the smoking ban should be extended into people’s private vehicles and homes. Now, I know this caused a great deal of perfectly understandable outrage among a lot of people. So let me make this clear: the government will not, under any circumstances, legislate to stop people smoking in private. It would be a crazy move and, believe it or not, ministers are not crazy people - they’re politicians and they recognise political realities.

And if they did attempt to legislate in this direction, I would risk the wrath of those who don’t believe Scottish MPs should vote on English matters by voting against it.

But as I say, I won’t need to, because it’s not going to happen.

Now, I quite like Tom's blog, he seems a decent enough chap, but surprisingly for a Labour politician, he possesses a semblance of common sense which he believes others in his profession share. If the prospect wasn't so incredibly terrifying, it would almost be worth Labour getting back in just to see if Tom would be true to his word on his voting intentions. Because, let's be in no doubt, if Labour were to secure a fourth term, banning smoking in cars and homes would most definitely be on their agenda.

In Jockland, the process has already started. In the beating heart of puritannical Britain, it's not if, but when.

Just published is this document, reporting on how 112 anti-tobacco professionals are working out how best to tip-toe through the subject of banning smoking in your own home.

Action to achieve smoke-free homes- an exploration of experts' views.

Needless to say, no opposing view is invited to this particular focus group.

In order to help inform the development of effective action on this issue, this paper explores the views of people working in tobacco control, at the local and national level in Scotland, about the potential for and feasibility of creating smoke-free homes.

There is no discussion of whether this is the correct thing to do. All they are concerned with is working out how to go about it.

On the one hand the home is a private space and there is some resistance found in the ethical debates inherent in public health literature to the blurring of the public/private boundary for smoke-free public health interventions. This is often articulated by libertarian arguments advocating the rights of smokers in their own home and opposing perceived encroachment of the State into private space.

On the one had the home is a private space? What other hand is there, exactly? I also liked the part about the encroachment of the state into private space being merely 'perceived'. No, it's real, because that is exactly what they are sitting around a table to work towards. I don't 'perceive' that they are doing it, I can see with my own fucking eyes that they are.

The conclusion, as if we were in any doubt what 112 people paid by the state to persecute smokers would say, is.

We, the authors, would argue that a clear goal of smoke-free homes should be advocated but that this approach should be located within tobacco control practice that is both sensitive to inequalities and gendered lives.

Now, Tom Harris said that this would be a crazy idea. He said that ministers are not crazy people. Yet who is paying for this nonsense?

This study was funded by NHS Health Scotland and the Scottish Executive.

We know full well that Scotland is a testing ground for every daft law that eventually migrates south under this administration, and here we have the scottish government funding a bunch of interfering chimps (who they already pay to be interfering chimps) to investigate how to invade our homes.

If Harris is correct and politicians aren't that stupid, then why is this line of enquiry being funded? Who is in charge? Our elected representatives, the health professionals, or the civil servants in the respective departments of health?

In a perverse kind of way, one almost hopes that it is the politicians who are more stupid than Tom Harris can bring himself to believe. At least then we can be mildly reassured that some form of democracy is still prevalent in the UK. The alternative is rather more scary to contemplate.

Wednesday, 22 April 2009

Immediately after slug-eyes had financially shafted us anally into the middle of next week (or, more accurately, the next decade or two), the bleating from the fake charities started. Apparently, he didn't tax us, or spend, enough!

Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern: "Over the past 20 years successive governments stood by as alcohol became progressively more affordable... The burden on our health service and police forces is unacceptable.

No it doesn't. As is customary, there is no justification for this claim, but it will pass into common parlance in internet chatrooms and maiden aunt coffee mornings up and down the country. It's how they work, the professionally righteous.

Alcohol use may well cost that to the country, but alcohol use also brings lucrative benefits which Shenker will always choose to ignore as they far outweigh the cost that he wishes to emphasize.

Having sown the lie, 'Hand Shandy' Shenker then pushes for, wait for it, more taxes, more pressure on businesses, and increased costs for consumers.

"Increasing tax on alcohol would be a positive first step towards tackling this country’s alcohol problems. But supermarkets should not be allowed to absorb duty increases and continue to deep discount and sell alcohol at a loss - introducing a minimum price for alcohol will allow pubs and bars to compete on a level playing field."

Bollocks. Increasing tax on alcohol will obviously push the trade abroad, supermarkets should be allowed to do as they see fit for their business, introducing a minimum price for alcohol will merely hit those on a budget and won't help pubs in any way whatsoever (it's also contrary to EU law and won't be allowed, but don't let that get in the way of a good temperance fantasy Don, you cock).

If Shenker really cared about the finances of the country (which, trust me, he doesn't), he could do something truly positive instead of attempting to drive consumers to other countries. I have a suggestion.

Don. Mate. Sack yourself, and the other 16 hectoring cunts that work with you, close down the office that you infest with your bile, and save the nation over £500k per year. Then apply for a job that adds to the UK's wealth instead of detracting from it. That or hang yourself from the nearest tree, your choice.

The pulchritudinally-challenged hag from ASH was even more shrill and ridiculous.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash: “This inflation-only tax rise will do little to reduce smoking and the impact will be lessened further by the continuing problem of tobacco smuggling. The Government’s new strategy announced last year needs to be underpinned by tough new targets to reduce the market share of smuggled tobacco."

Aww bless. Debbie believes sin taxes are designed to make people stop doing something. I take it, then, that she also believes that increasing income tax to 50% on those earning over £150,000pa is designed to stop people working hard. Debs, you're a bit fucking stupid, aren't you?

More draconian taxation isn't enough for the hideous mare, though, she wants more spending too. Tackling tobacco smuggling is going to be expensive. It takes the enlisting of extra manpower and increased surveillance, patrols, technology (repeat to fade). Funnily enough, a drop in taxes would reduce smuggling. But Debs wants it all. She's the kid who wants their pocket money for not putting the bins out.

Talking of pocket money, Debs, can we have the £200k your lot take from the public purse every year? The country could really do with it. We could use it to employ a few customs officers or something. Or perhaps to invest in people who help us to be prosperous, instead of ones who spend our money being a right royal pain in the arse.

If you are looking for some rope like I hope Don Skanker is, just drop me a line, I can help there too, you relentlessly obnoxious turd.

£348bn to be borrowed in the next two years. More than the combined borrowing of all governments in the past 300 years.

Zero cuts in massively bloated public sector staffing. Not a mention of reining in a financially debilitating welfare bill. Nothing on cutting back on wasteful government nannying adverts. Merely marginally smaller growth.

Public spending growth to be cut from 1.1% next year to 0.7% from 2011-2012

Business as usual on taxing success though, Denis Healey will be proud to see his rich-soaking and pip-squeaking policy making a comeback.

As Gordon and slug-brows want the shirt off your back (and off your kids' backs for the foreseeable future), why not send it to him now, as Old Holborn and the Libertarian Party have suggested.

Gordon Brown10, Downing StreetLondonSW1A 2AA.

Since we are now reliving the 70s Labour experience, maybe one with wing collars might be in order. Time to go digging in the loft.

The chancellor tore up a key New Labour election pledge by unveiling a new 50p tax rate for earnings over £150,000.

It really is about time the document presented to us prior to GE 2005 was filed under fiction.

Nothing to see here, says Nick Robinson.

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said Labour had ditched its manifesto pledge not to raise income tax before the next election in an effort to "wrongfoot" its opponents and cheer its core supporters, as well as raising money.

Tuesday, 21 April 2009

Judging by the volume of comments on this article detailing the government's latest plan to criminalise every single British driver, Labour may well have lost a few more voters. Excellent.

One of the measures planned is that of random breath tests, the benefits of which the Pub Curmudgeon has calmly dismantled with this analysis.

In fact, of course, “random breath testing” is nothing of the kind. That implies that the police will set up roadblocks and stop every seventh vehicle, or whatever. But what is really being proposed is “unfettered discretion”, an entirely different concept, that the police can test any driver, whenever and wherever they choose, regardless of any suspicion or evidence.

What this measure will do is further erode the basic principle of a free society that the police should not treat anyone as a suspect without due cause. It has been described as “sus on wheels”, but in reality it is even worse that the old “sus” law as there is no requirement even to demonstrate the slightest suspicion of offending.

He also points out the potential threat this measure may pose for pubs. You know, the businesses that Labour supposedly now want to 'save' after they began killing them off on July 1st 2007.

The 'scorched earth' hypothesis with this government is beginning to seem believable. Is the plan really to make Labour unelectable for a generation or more, or are they so cosy with single issue pressure groups and fake charities that they have simply lost touch with reality?

Monday, 20 April 2009

Pin your ears back for some more bansturbating nonsense. This time, from Waltham Forest Council.

A fast food outlet has been shut down for setting up too close to a school.

Police and council officials raided Bamboo Joint in Leytonstone, east London, to post a closure order because the takeaway broke new rules which ban hot foot outlets near schools, parks or leisure centres.

Yes, you read that right. Raided by police. For selling jerk chicken.

It's further fallout (as referenced here previously) from Jamie Oliver's best-selling TV series, which has led to a frenzy of mutual climax-inducing totalitarianism from the righteous.

Here's the timeline. The mockney moron produces a show which, quite rightly, points out the dearth of healthy options in school meals. Ed Balls, being the prize wanker that he is, jumps on the celebrity bandwagon and demands kneejerk action.

"There is no point in banning junk food and raising the quality of lunches in schools, if teenagers can simply go to eat unhealthy food from neighbouring take-aways," says Mr Balls.

Therein completely missing the point of living in a free society and the concept of personal choice, but that's by the by. Waltham Forest, being a hellish combination of Labour idealistic bullshit and Liberal Social Democrat nodding-righteously-at-the-latest-fuckwit-fad, then scramble to be the first in the country to pass a byelaw which is so ill thought-out as to be laughable.

Waltham Forest will become the first local authority in the country to impose such rules.

The proposals will prevent chicken shops, burger bars and similar outlets from opening up within 400 metres of schools, parks and youth centres and restrict their opening hours.

Note that parks and youth centres have been added (as have leisure centres), it's important later.

Result? Self-regarding local authority nerds storm-trooping into a caribbean food outlet bolstered by the might of the Met.

Jamie, me ole' mukka, is this what you intended? Whaddya reckon, geezer?

[Clyde Loakes] added: "This fast food outlet has not got planning permission and has absolutely no chance of getting it, because of its proximity to a park and a school, so we're closing it down."

He's well hard, ain't he? Clyde Loakes, the hammer of the rice and peas cartel. He has even declared an 'exclusion zone' around schools, the obnoxious dictatorial cockmonger.

Bamboo Joint, which has been operating for about six weeks, is within the exclusion zones around Tom Hood Secondary School, Mayville Primary School and Langthorne Park.

According to Waltham Forest's own site, their councillors advocated that 400 metres was to be the arbitrary limit.

Councillors agreed on 24 March, that no new fast food outlets should open within 400 metres of schools, parks or leisure centres

Yet putting the postcodes into Freemaptools.com reveals that Tom Hood is 593 metres as the crow flies, and Mayville Primary 537 metres.

Were they sailing away, but with fryers primed, General Belgrano-like, or something? If it were my living being destroyed, I'd sue the fuckers, and I reckon I'd have a good case.

Jocular Jamie's drive (and as a result, Ed Balls's) was focussed on schools, remember. However, Waltham Forest, as you may have observed, threw a few other places into the equation, just for good measure.

So it all boils down to this business being persecuted simply because it is a spitting distance from Langthorne Park. Oliver's idea may have been a worthy one, but his crusade has been hijacked by a government minister desperate for attention, enacted by a council leader gagging to big up his sad, shitty existence, resulting in a business being shut down for being too close to where people freely go, people who might freely like to exercise their own choice to consume the food on offer.

Now for the obligatory (these days) fake charity bit.

Waltham Forest Council leader Clyde Loakes said: "Residents have told us they wanted us to take action against the proliferation of fast food outlets and we're doing exactly that."

This was, naturellement, done via a typical Labour 'public consultation'. Its circulation was 11,000 which garnered 304 replies. The council's consultation statement [pdf], though, heavily emphasised what they termed 'key respondents'. Head teachers and health professionals were prominent, but none more so than one Jack Winkler, who Waltham Forest deem as a bit of an expert.

Professor Jack Winkler, Director of Food and Nutritional Policy at London Metropolitan University expressed support for the document and provided the following key findings from a recent research paper "The School Fringe: what secondary school pupils buy and eat from the shops around their schools":

• Hot food takeaways contribute to the high fat diet of schoolchildren, and hence to their obesity. The food schoolchildren buy from nearby hot food takeaways contains 46% fat.

• All hot food takeaways offer child-size portions and child-size prices to local schoolchildren. Hence, they constitute powerful competitors to school canteens, used by most pupils who are allowed off the school premises at lunchtime.

I didn't see anything there about parks, did you?

Nor is there anything about parks in Prof Winkler's original report. He talked a lot about what kids eat.

The School Food Trust was established by the Department for Education and Skills in September 2005.

It won't surprise you to learn that this 'charity' receives nil voluntary donations, yet receives turnover of nearly £9m per annum which helps fund 6 employees earning a salary of £60k or more.

Seriously, how can anyone even think about voting for Labour, or the Illiberal Dems come to that?

Just this one story throws up the gamut of illiberalism, local political self-aggrandisement and political connivance. Government incompetence, local authority exaggeration of minor threats, enforcement of byelaws over and above those authorised by elected personnel, misuse of police resources, and the jackboot of healthism stamping on the face of choice and personal responsibility.

Meanwhile, another business lost and more back-slapping for the public sector.

IT HAS tackled two vices for the price of one. The ban on lighting up north of the border has resulted in heavy-drinking smokers cutting back on alcohol.

Well, bugger me sideways, what a result for the righteous. Mung bean fritatas and treble pomegranate juices all round.

A survey of 1,000 adults after the smoking ban was introduced found that Scots smokers who also enjoyed at least two drinks a day cut back by an average of six drinks a week. The research, carried out in America and Scotland, appears to dispel fears that Scots discouraged from pubs because of the smoking ban would consume more alcohol at home.

Really, Tom Peterkin of The Scotsman? Are you sure about that? Or are you just being a lazy hack who can't be arsed to do your research before writing indolent pish?

Sherry McKee, of Yale University, said: "Smokers who were moderate or heavy drinkers drank less in pubs following the ban."

Err ... of course they drank less in pubs after the ban. If they bothered going at all, they spent more of their drinking time outside the pub. But just hold on a second, where is the part which proves potty Peterkin's analysis that pub consumption wasn't topped up by drinking elsewhere?

"That is a benefit for public health in that it reduces the alcohol consumption of a category of people who are at most risk from disease. This is the first time it has been demonstrated that smoking bans have an affect on alcohol consumption."

Quite a leap from the unfortunately named Sherry (geddit?). Less drinking in pubs must be proof that the alcohol intake isn't bolstered by other supplies at home?

Methinks Sherry must have an agenda, and it didn't take more than 3 Google seconds to find it (Peterkin obviously hasn't heard of Google).

Our research group is focused on improving treatment for those with nicotine and alcohol use disorders. Much of our work is aimed at developing and validating laboratory paradigms designed to evaluate medication effects on self-administration behavior.

"Use disorders"? "self-administration behavior"? So by self-administering (ie drinking or smoking), one must obviously be suffering from a 'disorder' now? Good fucking grief.

I don't suppose she has a pre-determined outcome for her studies by any chance? Well, actually, she may well have. She is a proponent of a drug called Varenicline, otherwise known as Champix over here. She's quite keen on it.

A popular smoking cessation drug dramatically reduced the amount a heavy drinker will consume, a new Yale School of Medicine study has found.

"We anticipate that the results of this preliminary study will trigger clinical trials of varenicline as a primary treatment for alcohol use disorders, and as a potential dual treatment for alcohol and tobacco use disorders," said Sherry McKee.

You may have heard of Champix (Chantix in the US) before. It has been linked to so many suicides in the US that the makers, Pfizer, have been forced to warn users that, although they may well give up smoking, the urge to jump off of the nearest skyscraper may become overwhelming.

Pfizer, who make the smoking cessation drug Chantix (varenicline), have updated the drug's labelling in the United States to reflect the fact patients may experience "serious neuropsychiatric symptoms", including suicidal behaviour.

The BBC reported on the same phenomenon in the UK. Far from being worried about the side effects of Champix on those who wish to quit smoking (or are forced to) though, Sherry is pushing for it to be extended as a treatment for those who 'self-administer' alcohol. Her sponsors are quoted as Yale University alone, but guess who has been interwoven with Yale for quite a few years.

Pfizer may partner with Yale

Drug company to announce plans with Yale, New Haven for new clinical trial center

And ...

Yale and Pfizer launch visiting professorship pilot program

Yale School of Medicine and Pfizer Global Research have launched a pilot program to enhance scientific interactions between Pfizer and Yale.

The program also provides Yale faculty with an improved understanding of the drug discovery process in order to counsel its students more effectively on career opportunities in the pharmaceutical industry.

No conflict of interests there then.

It's not difficult to find this stuff, so what is Tom Peterkin's problem? Why is he regurgitating faux science as fact without even a pretence of investigation? Dizzy explained it well on Friday.

... reporters are failing us because they don't really report anymore, they just repeat. Whether its a smear here or there, or just a press release that has been taken at face value without a critical eye added. Deadlines, copy, and filling column inches take precedent over seeking out the truth. It's truly a shite state of affairs to be in.

With appalling journalistic standards such as that displayed by Peterkin, is it any wonder that the Scotsman is suffering a dramatic decline in readership? Not just in dead tree sales but also in their internet stats. As former Scotsman editor Stewart Kirkpatrick opined in February.

Sunday, 19 April 2009

"Frankly the job could be done with half as many, it could be more productive, more efficient, it could deliver a lot more value for money for the taxpayer. I was amazed, quite frankly, at how many people deserved the sack and yet that was the one threat that they never ever worked under, because it doesn't exist."

Well, now it seems that many of the state salaried rubber band flickers and thumb-twiddlers are in agreement.

ALMOST 8,000 civil servants admit they have little idea what they are supposed to be doing when they turn up for work each day.

They told staff surveys they are “not clear about what is expected of them within their job”.

Isn't it to just take the money and vote labour when the time comes? That, and play spider solitaire and minesweeper, of course.

It gets worse ...

They have revealed that across the 13 Government departments only 37.5 per cent of civil servants felt their organisation was well managed.

They are correct. If 8,000 civil servants haven't a clue what they should be doing, management should have issued 8,000 more P45s. But why bother? It's not their money, is it?

At the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, created when Gordon Brown split the former Education Department in two, less than half the staff said they understood what the department was trying to do.

That's easy too. It's to enable the education service to continue pumping out illiterate halfwits to twiddle thumbs and flick rubber bands, in civil service and local authority offices, for generations to come.

Here's a mad thought. Considering the government is going to need to save as many of our pennies as is humanly possible to service the astronomical debt that the psychotic one-eyed spendthrift has committed, and seeing as the results of these new staff surveys (also paid for by us to the tune of £500k pa) seem to agree with the musings of Lord Digby Jones, maybe a drastic slimming down of civil service staffing would be in order.

As The Cranberries once said, everyone else is doing it ... I just like to be different.

The clinically obese Liam Donaldson is a cunt, Alan Johnson is a cunt, Dawn Primarolo is a cunt and so is Patricia Hewitt ... a cunt, that is (apologies to any other healthist NuLab cunts I missed out).

Thursday, 16 April 2009

There is an upside though, as local councils always find an ultra vires way of making money out of them. Reading Council have thought up a natty little wheeze, pavement smoking licences.

Pubs and clubs may have to buy a licence to allow punters to smoke on the pavement outside premises if a new condition is introduced by the council.

A proposal is being put before the licensing committee on Tuesday to suggest pavements used by premises who do not have a private smoking area will have to be cordoned off and staffed during opening hours.

It would mean all who use the public highway as their smoking area would have to pay an annual £220 fee and have additional staff supervising the area.

They would also be responsible for emptying bins and sweeping the cordoned area, and would have to use barriers that met council requirements.

Payment for doing something that is perfectly legal? With additional business costs imposed too? Inspired!

As is the sleight of hand mendacity from the proponent of this measure.

Jean Champeau [?!?], who wrote the report on the proposals for the meeting, said: “The introduction of the recent smoking legislation has now resulted in a number of unauthorised smoking areas on public highways."

Pas de merde, Monsieur Sherlock. Did you raise these concerns before the law was enacted, espèce de chatte?

And unauthorised? Exactly when did smoking in the open air require authorisation? The outside is the outside, which, last time I looked, wasn't covered by the Health Act 2006. If it was cordoned off and staffed, it could be termed as an area that might need to have authorisation.

So what this fuckwit is saying is that where smokers stand must be cordoned off as the council demands it, so becoming an area which needs authorisation ... and therefore a licence. Brilliant!

“The licensing trade are keen to have areas which have been approved to a set standard."

Yep, that's right. This cocktard is truly trying to assert as fact that, at a time when pubs are closing at a rate of 39 per week, where there is a campaign which has been taken to Westmonster itself to save pubs, that the pub trade is crying out for rules such as this which require them to; pay for a licence; buy equipment to cordon off an area which is not their own; and employ extra staff to police and clean it.

With all due respect. Bollocks.

Is there a chance that this could be defeated? I doubt it. Labour and the (Il)Lib (Un)Dems have the majority.

There won't be much resistance from the locals either. The majority will smile glibly and nod in righteous agreement as something they don't personally like is restricted, completely oblivious to the fact that the cross hair will, sooner or later, be levelled at something they enjoy themselves.

So fuck the pubs. Fuck the British legal model of 'everything is permitted except that which is expressly prohibited by law'. And congratulations Reading council in contriving to ride the wave of righteousness, on a surfboard of misdirection and porkies, to garner extra funds to throw at diversity and road humps.

Merveilleux.

UPDATE:Lawson Narse has responded with an artistic commentary on the future of Reading council officers.

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

No, that's not a reference to the BNP or the Anti-Nazi League. We're talking the Green Party here, or specifically, Caroline Lucas, their leader.

Air travel 'as bad as stabbing person in the street', says MEP

Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party, suggested that travellers who regularly jet off to the Costas are threatening the lives of others - and do as much damage as thugs who stab people in the street.

When asked if flying to Spain was as bad as knifing a person in the street, Ms Lucas said: ‘Yes - because they are dying from climate change.’

Ms Lucas, who is also a Member of the European Parliament, made the controversial comment during a televised ITV debate about plans for a proposed third runway at Heathrow. She also hit out ‘binge flying’ and people who have second homes abroad.

All absurd, of course. The swivel-eyed fruitcake is merely taking a mild threat to ridiculous extremes to suit her purpose. It'll never work ... or will it?

The problem is that Lucas is just following the lead of campaigners against lifestyle choices, who have been using wildly exaggerated claims to push their ever-increasing totalitarianism for decades.

We're bombarded by the emotive term 'binge-drinking' from politicians parroting public health lobbyists, and now we have an MEP mirroring that emotion in talking about flying. Cancer Research UK (yes, them again) think it's a good idea too, hence their application of such extremism to the issue of sunbeds last week.

Young people are risking their lives by indulging in "binge tanning", a charity has warned.

That term is one thing, but comparing an everyday activity with stabbing someone is going too far, isn't it? Not for the righteous, it's not. If what they are asking for is quite ridiculous, the claims must be as wild and off-the-scale as possible. Take this example from the spiritual home of puritanism, California, which helped usher in a smoking ban in apartments (coming soon to a country very near you if we don't stand up to these loons).

The mayor who championed the new law declares, “It is our responsibility to take care of everyone!’ and a pro-ban council member who worries about smoke wafting into neighboring units compares smoking in an apartment to shooting a gun through the wall.

I think it is termed 'The Big Lie'. As an infamous European politician once put it:

"... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods."

I've long argued that if you allow the righteous to get away with outrageous lies merely because you dislike the same things as they do, there is a price to be paid further down the line. Caroline Lucas is proving my point, I'm afraid.

I think it's safe to say that if this is what we are to expect from the Green Party, it would be rather foolish to think of voting for them. In fact, just ask people in Brighton how they enjoy the input of their 12 Green councillors. I've touched on the Soviet republic of Brighton before, and do you know? They are still using the hammer of municipal power to crack a few peanuts.

Anton Cataldo, who specialises in painting pet portraits, decided to put up reward posters on six trees after two of his favourite dog paintings went missing.

But the only person who responded to his plea was a council official who fined him £75 for causing harm to "living trees."

The email [from Brighton & Hove city council] said: "Some of these posters have been stapled to trees. You appear to have little understanding that trees are living things.

In reply to Ms Lucas's comments, there was a common sense response offered by the leader of UKIP.

After the exchange David Campbell-Bannerman a prospective MEP candidate for the UK Independence Party, who also attended the debate, said: 'I was shocked.'There's no excuse for using extremist language to describe ordinary people going by plane to a well-earned holiday. Calling it "binge flying" is absurd.'

Strange that the media tend to paint UKIP as the outrageous party of European politics, and the Greens as somehow respectable. Judging by Caroline Lucas's views, surely her party should be viewed as political extremists.

Monday, 13 April 2009

While we're all on the subject of sick individuals in government departments, let's not forget the Department of Health, for whom the term 'sick' doesn't quite do justice to their psychotic tendencies.

I've mentioned before that they are disgusting cunts, but it's always worth emphasising that fact every time that they get slapped down for perverted scaremongering, paid for, of course, by us.

Health experts have accused the Government of using "ludicrous scare tactics" in a public information campaign which links eating a fairy cake to early death.

One - which shows a picture of a young girl of healthy weight and appearance, biting into a fairy cake, and captioned: "Is a premature death so tempting?" - has provoked a backlash from parents, chefs and obesity experts.

It's quite correct that the DoH should be called to account for such ridiculous shit. The ads no doubt motivated the clinically obese health supremo, Liam Donaldson, to binge-wank over his computer screen in joyous self-congratulation. Because let's be in no doubt, this is pure healthist porn. The DoH has been producing such for quite a while now.

Then we had the recent ASA ruling that kids were being scared into thinking their parents would die every time they smoked, prompting a banning of the ads until after 7:30pm.

Of course, the righteous at the DoH were unrepentant.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said: "Our advertising is not meant to shock but to make adult smokers think about their smoking behaviour and the effect it has on their loved ones."

Not meant to shock? You lying perverts. You're no doubt too busy moaning and stuffing vibrating eggs up each others' arses, whilst watching the footage, to realise that your actions might be psychologically harming the chiiildren you purport to 'protect'.

The latest condemnation of the appalling methods employed by the DoH should be particularly shocking to them seeing as it emanates from those who would normally be on their side. So are the DoH cowed? Of course not. Why should they be? They have already thrown their keys into a big bowl, and have paired off to look at the moving pics of the girl eating a fairy cake, whilst indulging in a mass orgy involving a variety of battery-powered toys that Dawn Primarolo bought from Ann Summers (charged to Jacqui Smith's expenses of course ... allegedly).

A spokesman for the Department of Health said the campaign was based on extensive research.

He insisted the two adverts, which have been backed by charities Diabetes UK, Cancer Research UK and The British Heart Foundation, did not use scare tactics, but "straightforward language" and pointed out that obesity costs the NHS £4.2 billion a year.

Didn't use scare tactics? Are you fucking sure? What on earth is more of a scare tactic than insinuating that eating a fairy cake is going to bring on premature death, you fucknuts?

I'm sure, dear reader, that you are there ahead of me, but did you notice the mention of a few organisations amongst the DoH spokesperson's verbal retching? Yes, it's our old friends, the shitstick charities. The ones who pose as caring for you, whilst simultaneously spending donations on lobbying government to stop you enjoying your life. When they ask you to 'race for life', they don't tell you that the money will be used to pay for their lobbying consultant, do they? When they ask you to ride from London to Brighton, they don't mention that they will use your sponsorship to scare your kids witless.

Of the dozens of mothers who took part in the site's [Mumsnet] discussion about the advert, none spoke in its favour.

Several expressed fears that their over-the-top health messages were leaving children terrified, and at risk of developing a complex about food.

One, who said she was "infuriated" by the "terrible and simplistic" adverts described her child as already being "brainwashed" by exaggerated messages about healthy eating promoted by schools.

She said: "Her dad gave her sugar on her cereal and she became very upset about dying."

The DoH is paying for these adverts out of our money. They are using funds, extracted from us under threat of fines and imprisonment, to hector us on how we should live our lives. They then pass on a fair chunk to charities to lobby them on how they should best do it. The result is a cabal of righteous onanists who see themselves as arbiters of our moral well-being.

The truly disgusting part of it all is that we can get as angry as we like at the DoH, but they hide behind charities, as the Change4Life campaign web-site front page above shows, safe in the knowledge that no-one will have the balls to gut a cancer charity, or a heart disease charity, or a diabetes charity.

Well, I fucking will.

Cancer Research UK should be directing their £476m income towards researching a cure for cancer, not lobbying government for micro-management of our lives. Personally, I won't donate even a single dangleberry to a charity that advertises on the premise of curing cancer but then diverts funds to a tobacco advisory group.

The British Heart Foundation should stop lying and should on no account be using any of their £185m receipts to employ staff to collude with the DoH in telling kids that they will die if they eat a fairy cake.

Diabetes UK almost have an excuse, seeing as their field has at least a passing relevance to cakes, but perhaps their £29m turnover would be better spent not partaking in an ill thought-out campaign which could push healthy kids into a future of misery and beholden to help from other charities.

Or is that the point with the 'third sector' now? It is, after all, almost an extension of the public sector, such is the society that Labour have contrived to inflict in the past 12 years.

LONDON - The government is on track to overtake Procter & Gamble as the UK's biggest-spending advertiser, after the latter cut its adspend by 10%.

One can almost hear lardy Liam's flies being unzipped at the prospect of the filth to come.

You're being told to think twice before feeding that fairy cake to your child, might I suggest instead that you should think very carefully about how your country should be run in the future?

Next time you see a box on a ballot paper with a Labour candidate next to it, think carefully about how putting an X in it could ruin your life. Next time a charity asks you for money, ask them exactly what they are spending the money on. And next time you see or hear a DoH advert graphically describing death or disability for the simple pleasure of enjoying a legal product, think of Liam Donaldson with his pants round his ankles.

If the expert opinion of that renowned and respected medic, Dr Russell Brand, is to be believed, Draper could be facing an imminent health crisis.

The comic says the late Big Brother star [Jade Goody] may not have developed her terminal cancer if it were not for the 'intense hatred' she faced over the Shilpa Shetty race row in 2007.

... he said: '[The media] just want to simplify things. Like with the Jade Goody situation. I personally think that poor young woman would not have developed cancer had she not been the focus of such intense hatred – malevolent hatred – for such a long period of time.'

Dolly is screwed then.

Oddly, Brand doesn't seem to make a distinction between undeserved hatred, and that which is brought upon oneself by one's own actions. It's the modern way, unfortunately. Always someone else's fault.

Dolly, we need you. We need the risible ineptitude and dullness of your Labour List website to remind us, daily, just how painfully inferior left-wing blogs are to right-wing ones. We need to see your bum-fluff-covered jowls in close up on TV wobbling indignantly as you deny, yet again, that you have ever said or done anything wrong - even though we know your pants are on fire and so do you, you great big porkie-pie merchant.

Sunday, 12 April 2009

In 1964, a process began that was to lead, eventually, to the 'denormalisation' of a legal product and the leperisation of its users.

It wasn't initially supposed to happen that way. In fact, the producers and their public health detractors sat round a table to find a way of negating the newly-discovered health consequences of the popular product. Unfortunately, the initiative was shelved, or to put it more accurately, ruthlessly removed from history. Why? Because an alternative method of delivery had been invented.

The program was abruptly terminated, the team dismantled, the research records destroyed, and any trace of the program erased.

The tentacles of Big Pharma, in the course of perfecting transdermal nicotine and other nicotine delivery devices, stealthily took hold of public health, and pushed its authorities to pursue the policy of abolitionism, 'denormalization', demonization and fraud-based prohibition that we see today

Such was the birth of nicotine replacement therapy, and with it, the war for control of the nicotine market.

Help at hand for chocaholics: The inhaler that relieves cocoa cravings... for zero calories

It is the chocoholic's dream - a sweet treat that gives all the joy of chocolate without any of the calories.

Scientists have created an inhaler packed with tiny particles of chocolate.A whiff or two gives all the pleasure of chocolate without any of the guilt, or so its designers from the respected Harvard University believe.

Could we be seeing the seeds of another struggle for control of a hugely profitable market by pharmaceutical interests?

Paranoid? Perhaps, but it has a whiff (puntime) of déjà vu about it, so let's look at the background of the 'designers', or the prime one anyway. Step forward Professor David Edwards of Harvard University.

Edwards shot to fame (and immense fortune) at the end of the 20th century, by inventing an inhaler for delivery of insulin. He is the founder of Advanced Inhalation Research, which just happens to be part-owned by US pharmaceutical companies, Alkermes (who specialise in addiction) and Pulmatrix. With the global chocolate market worth an estimated £75bn per annum, that's quite a bit of cash for pharma to get their teeth (or noses) into.

But chocolate is a completely different kettle of fish, I hear you scoff, it is enjoyed by millions and there are no health consequences to latch onto. It can't happen with our beloved cocoa bean.

Confident, are you? Remember that smoker prevalence in 1964 was around 43% of the population before pharma started their healthist jihad. The health impacts were ramped up to the ludicrous exaggeration we see today, so that just by being seen with an unlit cigarette is considered almost a sackable offence in some professions. In the US, the world centre for hysterical healthism, you can be fired for smoking in your home too.

Ah, but chocolate isn't that dangerous, it's not a major health issue, they'd never go after the humble Mars bar.

I beg to differ. Illiberal Labour morons such as Alan Johnson have already started the crusade with a vengeance.

Chocolate bars to be made smaller in Government anti-obesity drive

The following week, some Jock quack followed up with a proposal for a tax on chocolate, which was defeated by just two votes.

Scottish GPs have voted against a proposal for chocolate to be taxed in the same way as alcohol and cigarettes to tackle increasing levels of obesity.

Dr David Walker, a GP in Lanarkshire, warned that chocolate had lost its status as a "treat" and had become a harmful addition for some people.

However, his motion calling for a tax on chocolate was defeated by two votes at a BMA conference in Clydebank.

The process has started. How long before 'Passive Chocolate Eating' rears its ugly head? Well, actually, there have already been the first signs of that angle of attack too.

Obesity 'contagious', experts say

The study looked at data collected over 32 years. Having a friend, sibling or spouse who is overweight raises a person's risk of being obese too, US researchers say.

All of a sudden, Le Whif sounds like a cracking future revenue stream for big pharma.

It's all in place. The determination of government to 'crack down' on chocolate. The 'addiction' must be tackled. The 'guilt' has being identified and is being played upon by the manufacturers of Le Whif. The 'cravings' can be alleviated by this ingenious device, backed by pharmaceutical might and will, if past behaviour is to be judged, result in production of volumes of junk science to back their alarmism.

The rewards are there to be harvested. According to the Telegraph article,

All I know is these e-mails were private and I would say to people, you know, yes the content of these e-mails are shocking and people will be appalled when they read them tomorrow ...

This from someone who says later in the interview that he hasn't seen what the News of the World have penned for the morning. Must be quite bad, then.

... and when they read them, just remember they were never published ...

Till today.

... but equally, just imagine if your own e-mails were made public to everybody, you know, what you might have said, or considered doing, or told a mate you would do, you know, it's a very very murky business to start looking in personal and private e-mails. It's a bit like having your most personal files at home ransacked and stolen.

We can imagine that Dolly, because Labour, your party, are doing just that to us, it started on Monday.

Internet records to be stored for a year

Details of every email sent and website visited by people in Britain are to be stored for use by the state from tomorrow as part of what campaigners claim is a massive assault on privacy.

Saturday, 11 April 2009

One must feel a trifle sorry for John Prescott. He has spent the entire week flogging what he thought was a live horse in Dan Hannan's comments on the NHS, only for it to be administered a lethal injection by the McBride/Draper/Noises-Off affair.

Whilst Prezza should be admired for his foray into Hazel Blears' bête noir (despite a distinct lack of written dexterity), he is very quiet on such an explosive issue for the blogosphere.

His recent target isn't though, as the US poster boy today points out that e-mails are almost as squalid when circulated at the EU.

There will be a big row in tomorrow's papers about l'affaire McBride. But I guarantee that there will be no fuss about the memo in the European Commission explicitly telling officials to disguise, in their emails, the extent that they are being lobbied by corporate interests. Its text is almost beyond parody. Having explained how to defy requests for information while remaining within the letter of the rules (for example, by denying that you have had representations from a named company when you have in fact had representation from a lobbyist acting on its behalf), it reminds Eurocrats that their emails might be published: "Don't refer to the great lunch you have had with an industry representative privately or add a PS asking if he/she would like to meet for a drink."

Labour seem to have targeted Hannan as a loose cannon (naively IMO), and after four days, Prezza had whipped up the frenzy amongst the blogging community into a mild tut. With Guido showing what political blogs can really do, Prescott has shown himself to be rather green in not reacting to the threat.

Hannan, on the other hand, shows a better understanding of the medium, and also innovation in his riding of the wave of opinion.

It'll be interesting to see what the Jagmeister comes up with once he has finished chomping through his choccy eggs.

I wonder if they will be as keen to mention this rather larger study. In fact, it is the largest study ever undertaken on the impact of smoking bans. It examined 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2 million heart attack deaths in 468 counties in all 50 states of the USA over an eight-year period.

The conclusion?

we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.

That's scientist speak for smoking bans haven't made any impact whatsoever. How inconvenient for the fake charity community.

Friday, 10 April 2009

It must be crashingly boring just rubber-stamping rulings emanating from the unelected EU Commission, so Labour MEP Richard Corbett has found a way to keep himself occupied.

We was robbed! MEP aims to win back 1973 title for Leeds United

In the pantheon of footballing injustices - and it is a long list - the final of the 1973 European Cup Winners' Cup ranks high.

At least it does to Richard Corbett, the Labour MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, who has organised a petition to have the match investigated over allegations of dodgy refereeing that, he said, cost Leeds United the game.

Uefa pledged to meet Mr Corbett to discuss the petition but stressed that its disciplinary regulations prohibited any prosecution for bribery after ten years had passed.

So, a complete waste of effort, then. I suppose he has to do something to bide his time at our expense, but one would have thought that attempting to change 36 year old history would be considered a bit too loony even for Labour.

With Europe's economy in a bit of a state, shouldn't Mr Corbett be using his time more efficiently? Or could it be that there is an election fast approaching for the Yorkshire MEP? An area of the UK which, I expect, contains quite a few Leeds Utd fans.

Their motive is classified in the 'thinkus ofthechiiildrenicus' order of the 'puritannicae' family. It follows thus: children have been known to access vending machines, cigarettes are bad, thus all vending machines are evil and should be despatched to the nearest incinerator.

As usual with bansturbators, options which would afford choice for adults while still protecting the chiiildren are not considered, or indeed, even mentioned, to their twinkly-eyed readers.

A BLACKPOOL company hit by the smoking ban is to trial a "state-of-the-art" cigarette machine.

When a customer wants to buy cigarettes they will have to ask bar staff, who will check for ID before unlocking the machine remotely.

It will remain on stand-by until a remote control device is used to allow it to sell a packet.

The machines are already used across mainland Europe and come as a number of landmark cases across the UK aim to ban cigarette machines from pubs and clubs due to an increase in children buying them from machines to avoid ID checks.

Note the highlighted part above. These machines are already in use all over Europe and work perfectly well. Other options are machines that can only be operated with a token that must be purchased over the bar on production of ID.

So how would this tackle the concerns of the BHF? Let's see.

The BHF wants to reduce the number of young people who are putting their health at risk. To help do this, we want to see an immediate ban on the sale of cigarettes from vending machines.

-In Scotland one in ten 13 to 15 year olds who smoke get cigarettes from vending machines

... not with these machines they wouldn't.

-In England and Wales we estimate that as many as 46,000 children get their cigarettes from vending machines in England and Wales.*

... not with these machines they wouldn't. (the asterisk was to explain that this wasn't a real figure, but a made up one).

-In Northern Ireland we estimate that there could be over 1,500 11-15 year olds accessing their cigarettes through vending machines.

... not with these machines they wouldn't.

I wonder why a companycharity with a turnover of £185m has managed to miss this potential solution to the problem. Did not one of their 1,717 staff or 16,183 volunteers stumble across such a possibility when researching the issue of vending machines?

Shhhh ... come closer, I'll whisper ... listen, it's only a hunch, but I reckon they did. And when they did, you know what I think happened? I think they might have buried it, as their focus isn't really on the children, is it?

In an ideal world, righteous meddlers like the BHF would be honest about their busybodying. They would come out and say quite clearly that they just want smokers to suffer as they don't approve of their lifestyle choice. However, that wouldn't get them very far, would it? It might also lose them public donations from the 9 million people in the UK who enjoy smoking. That just wouldn't do, would it.

So, yet again, the chiiildren are brought into play. And even then, alternatives, which wouldn't adversely affect the way adults wish to lead their lives, are purposely ignored.

The BHF, Cancer Research UK, and world-leading fake charity ASH, are also urging their ill-informed readers to e-mail their MP to make them sign Early Day Motion 768 about this issue. Perhaps not too astoundingly, 69 equally ill-informed fucktard MPs have signed it.

If your MP is on that list (incredibly, my ban-happy MP isn't ... yet), perhaps you might like to ask why they don't look further into an issue before jumping to kneejerk reaction on subjects about which they obviously have no real clue.

Have I ever mentioned that there were alternatives to the blanket smoking ban that were likewise swept under the nearest righteous carpet by the likes of the BHF?

Britain is in danger of producing a society that fears its children, the Shadow Home Secretary will warn today.

I think he had his tenses mixed up there, he should have left out the 'in danger of' bit and said 'has produced' instead.

'It's time that children realised that they can be told to stop it by a teacher or a policeman and that, sometimes, they just have to do what they are told. Young people have to learn that when an adult makes a decision they have to listen - the adult doesn't have to "earn the respect" of the young person.'

Unfortunately, his idea of a solution to the problem involves, as is predictable these days, more state regulation of the children themselves, rather than targeting the attitudes inherent in modern parenting.

It's only once parents can wean themselves off of the "won't somebody think of the chiiiiildren" kneejerk mantra, that kids will begin to realise that there are limits on their rights until they reach 18.

That is not to say that we should hark back to the Victorian "children should be seen and not heard" attitude, but that parents must learn to realise that the world should not be run at the behest of children, that kids should be made aware that life is tough and they won't be wrapped in cotton wool all their lives, and that until a person reaches majority, they are to do as they are told ... as we had to.

Good parenting involves all of the above, but seems to have been abandoned by many families in favour of a belief that whatever a kid wants, a kid gets, and to hell with anyone else.

Tuesday, 7 April 2009

PARIS (Reuters) - Almost half of French people believe it is acceptable for workers facing layoffs to lock up their bosses, according to an opinion poll published Tuesday.

Staff at French plants run by Sony, 3M and Caterpillar have held managers inside the factories overnight, in three separate incidents, to demand better layoff terms -- a new form of labour action dubbed "bossnapping" by the media.

Perhaps we could try this to ram some fucking morals into our MPs. The question is, which of the slimy troughers would be first for the hood and the rope?

Monday, 6 April 2009

Following receipt of a steaming pile of lying horseshit over a previous Number 10 e-petition, it seemed worth vainly trying to submit one myself. It went a bit like this:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to:

cease the practice of e-petitions on the Number 10 web-site as they are wasteful of taxpayers' resources which provide no added value to the democratic process and raise vain hope of a solution.

Having received yet another number 10 response which ignores the valid grievance contained in the petition, it is quite clear that number 10 e-petitions are not fit for purpose, and that the entire futile exercise should be scrapped.

The e-petitions site wastes taxpayers' funds in two ways. 1) by the allocation of government money to those who administer them, which is exacerbated by 2) only agreeing with petitions which correspond with the government's own policy, thereby adding no value whatsoever to the democratic process.

Additionally, they are a drag on the productivity of the country as many man hours are spent vainly petitioning where there is no realistic chance of a positive response, whilst there are simultaneously many more productive ways of engaging with politicians which should be encouraged instead.

The petitions are censorial (requiring government approval first), and are certain not to influence government policy. The undersigned call on the government to either take these petitions seriously, or cease pretending that there is any possible meaningful result to be aspired to by becoming a signatory.

As expected, the rejection arrived today.

Hi,

How very chatty.

I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected. Your petition was classed as being in the following categories:

* Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel

Which begs the question. Which is the appropriate channel? The rejected petition did touch on such with "there are simultaneously many more productive ways of engaging with politicians which should be encouraged instead."

Is this subtle confirmation that, as I espoused, if one wishes to influence the way Labour engage with the electorate, the Number 10 petitions site is not the place to do it?

One can only surmise that my original headline was entirely correct. "Time to consign Number 10 e-petitions to the nearest sewer".

They are, quite simply, donkey cock. A pointless use of your time. An exercise in futility. A waste of public money in order to fulfil one simple purpose, the furtherance of government propaganda.

Don't be taken in, the Number 10 e-petitions site is a con job.

UPDATE: I can't wait to read the rejection message for this petition on the National Speed Limit reduction. Over 20,000 sigs so far. Reckon Number 10 will listen? Pffft.

'Of the 1.2 million staff in the NHS, it is likely that around 300,000 would be classified as obese and a further 400,000 as overweight.'

The advice is being targeted initially at nurses, midwives and health visitors, but it would be hypocritical not to extend that further in the health system, wouldn't it?

But then again, how can that be possible seeing as the Chief Medical Dictator, that odious cockmonger Liam Donaldson, is severely overweight? Some insensitive types might even term him 'clinically obese'.

One would assume that, in clinically obese Liam's position, he would have had some input into the Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: One Year On guidelines.

The report said it was these health leaders who set an example to patients through their behaviour and lifestyles.

Programmes will be developed over the next year to support NHS staff in maintaining and achieving a healthy weight.

Fucking hell, Liam! You'd better get on the phone to Ryvita sharpish, a couple of industrial pallets should be enough to satisfy your weekly gluttony. If that doesn't work, drop me a line, perhaps I could help by cutting out your oesophagus with a rusty hacksaw so you can only ingest your five a day as smoothies through a C-diff infected tube.

It's OK, I'm only joking. It's not going to happen really ... lardy Liam won't be advocating health advice which he has to follow himself any time soon, the hideous cunt.